Other views: General Assembly needs to address teacher pay

It was just a few years ago that lawmakers in South Carolina and other poor-performing states realized that for their state to succeed, they had to invest in education.

So the long, and expensive, journey of improving schools began.

Key to that improvement was elevating teachers — the ones charged with educating the next generation. That was done with respect. Respect for the job, respect for the person doing the job, respect for the profession. And that respect was rewarded with higher salaries that made the profession much more appealing and raised the caliber of our teachers. It was also rewarded with training and support to do their job better.

More college students majored in education and professionals in other fields took advantage of programs that let them become teachers without going back to college.

Then the money got tight. In South Carolina, teachers went two years without a pay raise. Last year, they got a raise, but part of it was paid for with funds allocated for just one year. At the same time, teachers, as a group, came under fire from pundits who insisted they weren’t doing their jobs. That respect was slipping away quickly.

Recently, state school Superintendent Mick Zais said he wants teachers to get a pay raise — but he’s putting the burden for that back on the local districts to come up with the money.

That means the district would have to cut spending one place and put that money toward salaries, or raise taxes.

Because owner-occupied homes aren’t assessed property taxes for school operations, and tax increase would fall mostly on businesses.

That puts teachers even more in the line of fire of tax-hating residents who don’t want to shell out any more money for taxes.

Zais’ rationale is that districts are top-heavy — too much money goes to administrators. That may be true in some districts, but not in all. So what are those districts to do? ...

While Zais may be short-sighted when it comes to taking care of the state education system’s greatest assets, its teachers, he is working within a broken system — the dysfunctional S.C. General Assembly.

Years of inconsistent funding, an ineffective school taxing system and a general inability to get anything done have hurt our schools. And we’re going to have to ante up. If higher standards for education are demanded by the state, then the money has to be there, consistently, to make it happen.

So long as the feds are into deficit spending, a few more dollars tossed South Carolina’s way ought not make a big difference.

The Palmetto State thinks its residents’ right to vote should be protected, perhaps more so than their Social Security numbers and other personal information, but that’s another matter. To help guard against potential voter fraud and ensure a person who casts a ballot at the polls is, in fact, the person he claims to be, South Carolina enacted a voter ID law.

People can — and certainly have — go back and forth about the intent of the law. South Carolina certainly has a tainted history when it comes to voting rights, but every effort was taken to ensure this new law does not disenfranchise the poor, the elderly or minorities.

The law was rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice under the premise it violated a portion of the federal Voting Rights Act. DOJ apparently is unaware the Palmetto State has progressed fairly well beyond the Jim Crow days.

We’re not perfect, mind you, but the majority of the residents and those in power really don’t have a problem with letting every properly registered voter fulfill his duty, right and obligation to cast a ballot. Simply, the new law provides proof a voter is who he claims to be, just as a photo ID is used to establish proper identification in financial transactions, such as check cashing.

Anyway, the state sued the federal government because of the DOJ’s rejection of the law. And won. Now, $3.5 million later, the state hopes to recoup some of its financial burden brought on by the suit. Three judges who presided over the state’s suit said the feds are obligated to pony up.

As much as we hate to see that national deficit spending number keep soaring, we agree and think the feds should come off the money soon, and for more than the $90,000 attorney general Alan Wilson was seeking; after all, if DOJ had not treated the state as though it was stuck in 1965, the lawsuit would not have been necessary.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.